Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNoise Noise Noise Excerpted from VAIL TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Prepared for: Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Prepared by: Washington Infrastructure Services, Inc. 402 7TH Street, Atrium Suite 111 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 WGI Project Number 2284.02 July 2002 Table of Contents 1 Town of Vail Table of Contents Executive Summary Chapter 1: Vail Village Deliveries Introduction...................................................................................................................................1-1 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 1-4 Operations .................................................................................................................................1-10 Chapter 2: In-Town Shuttle Bus System Introduction...................................................................................................................................2-1 Town Bus System Overview .........................................................................................................2-2 Objectives.....................................................................................................................................2-3 Options for the Vail In-Town Shuttle System.................................................................................2-3 Analysis of Remaining Technologies ............................................................................................2-4 Recommendations........................................................................................................................2-9 Chapter 3: Outlying Bus System West Vail Bus Route Overview .....................................................................................................3-1 Downvalley Bus System ...............................................................................................................3-7 Chapter 4: Trail System Interface Recreation Trails Constructed since 1990.....................................................................................4-1 Pedestrian I-70 Undercrossings Constructed Since 1990 .............................................................4-2 Recommendations........................................................................................................................4-3 Chapter 5: Level of Service Analysis Introduction...................................................................................................................................5-1 Intersection Level of Service.........................................................................................................5-1 Possible Solutions.........................................................................................................................5-4 Parking Structure Level of Service................................................................................................5-5 Chapter 6: Connecting Fixed Guideways Draft Report Introduction...................................................................................................................................6-1 I-70 Mountain Corridor Major Investment Study ............................................................................6-2 Recommendations........................................................................................................................6-4 Table of Contents 2 Town of Vail Chapter 7: Noise Noise Terminology........................................................................................................................7-2 CDOT's Noise Policy.....................................................................................................................7-4 Noise Analysis ..............................................................................................................................7-5 Modeling Results ..........................................................................................................................7-7 Sensitivity Analysis .....................................................................................................................7-11 Noise Abatement ........................................................................................................................7-15 Summary ....................................................................................................................................7-32 Chapter 8: I-70 Capping Introduction...................................................................................................................................8-1 Opportunities ................................................................................................................................8-2 General I-70 Capping Issues ........................................................................................................8-4 Environmental Impact Considerations...........................................................................................8-6 General Capping Considerations ..................................................................................................8-7 Capping Construction Issues ........................................................................................................8-8 Comparative Capping Projects....................................................................................................8-11 Chapter 9: Traffic Model Introduction ...................................................................................................................................9-1 Model Development......................................................................................................................9-1 Existing Network ...........................................................................................................................9-6 Future Network..............................................................................................................................9-7 Summary.....................................................................................................................................9-10 Chapter 10: PEIS Issues Issues ........................................................................................................................................10-1 Other Issues ...............................................................................................................................10-6 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................10-9 Appendices A1: Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, March 2000 and July 2000 A2: FHU Vail Village Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, September 2000 B1: Project Objectives and Criteria B2: Technology Screening Process C1: Portions of the Eagle County Trails Master Plan C2: Trail Maps from Original Transportation Master Plan D1: Intersection Level of Service D2: Roundabout Level of Service E: I-70 Capping and Fixed Guideway Mapping F1: CDOT Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines F2: Noise Contour Mapping G: FHWA Joint Development Study H1: Population and Employment Data Table of Contents 3 Town of Vail H2: Traffic Volume Data H3: Model Calibration H4: Growth Model H5: Trip Reassignment Work Table List of Figures 1-1: Potential Delivery Quadrants for the Commercial Core......................................................1-8 2-1: Comparative Screening Matrix...........................................................................................2-7 4-1: New Trails Completed Since 1990.....................................................................................4-4 7-1: Receiver Locations ............................................................................................................7-8 7-2: Approximate Noise Wall Locations ..................................................................................7-25 8-1: Total Costs for Each Tunnel ............................................................................................8-18 9-1: Schematic Representation of the Vail Transportation Model Network................................9-2 9-2: Schematic Representation of the Vail Transportation Model Network.................................9-4 List of Tables 3-1: Low-Floor Vehicle Specifications.......................................................................................3-5 5-1: Level of Service for a Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection ............................................5-2 5-2: Town of Vail Existing LOS Analysis ...................................................................................5-3 5-3: Town of Vail Existing Parking Structure LOS Analysis.......................................................5-5 7-1: Typical Noise Levels..........................................................................................................7-3 7-2: CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria........................................................................................7-4 7-3: I-70 Segment Characteristics.............................................................................................7-7 7-4: Noise Model Results..........................................................................................................7-9 7-5: Noise Level Ranges Based on Distance from I-70...........................................................7-11 7-6: Relative Noise Level Increases Based on Traffic Volumes ..............................................7-13 7-7: Decibel Increases Based on “Jake” Brake Noise .............................................................7-14 7-8: Decibel Increases Based on Rumble Strip Noise.............................................................7-14 7-9: Noise Wall Descriptions...................................................................................................7-23 7-10: Noise Model Results with Mitigation Measures in Place ..................................................7-26 7-11: Masonry (Concrete Block) Noise Wall Cost .....................................................................7-28 7-12: Concrete Pre-Cast Panel Noise Wall Cost.......................................................................7-28 7-13: Concrete Cast in Place Noise Wall Cost ..........................................................................7-28 7-14: Noise Model Results with Mitigation Measures in Place ..................................................7-29 7-15: Relative Noise Level Increases Based on Traffic Volumes ..............................................7-34 9-1: Nodes in the Vail Transportation Model.............................................................................9-2 9-2: Links in the Vail Transportation Model...............................................................................9-4 9-3: Origins and Destinations Matrix (Existing).........................................................................9-5 9-4: Estimated Growth for Nodes in the Vail Model...................................................................9-7 9-5: 2020 Adjusted Volumes for the Vail Model ........................................................................9-9 10-1: PEIS Issues for the Town of Vail and Possible Solutions................................................10-11 Executive Summary i Town of Vail Executive Summary Vail, Colorado attracts a large number of visitors each year because of its world-class ski area, wide array of recreational opportunities, and thriving economy with numerous restaurants, retail businesses, and services to choose from. With a high volume of visitors comes a need for an efficient transportation system to get visitors to and from Vail and to transport them within the Town as well. In 1990, the Town of Vail undertook a Transportation Master Plan to address all transportation systems and future needs for the area (see Vail Transportation Master Plan, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, 1993). That document addressed the current transportation system within Vail and also provided recommendations for improvements to the system. Purpose of the Update to the Transportation Master Plan The Town of Vail makes great efforts to keep its transportation system as efficient and updated as possible. This is evidenced by the many improvements and additions to the system over the years to accommodate the high volumes of visitors and traffic each year. Because ten years have passed since the production of the original Transportation Master Plan, the Town has deemed it necessary to provide an update for the continued efficiency of the transportation system. The purpose of this Transportation Master Plan Update is to review the existing conditions of the transportation system and to address and/or resolve transportation issues that have arisen since 1990. The following issues were included in the original Transportation Master Plan and will be addressed and updated in this document: · Vail Village Deliveries · Town Bus System (specifically, the In-Town Shuttle) Executive Summary ii Town of Vail · Outlying Bus System · Trail System Interface · Peak Hour Traffic Volumes · Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis · Implementation Process · Plan Monitoring and Updating One issue addressed in the original document has been resolved since 1990 and is no longer applicable to this update, and that is the Interstate 70 (I-70) Access. In the original document, parking issues for the Town of Vail were also addressed. The parking issues are also being addressed at the time of publication of this update; however, the study is still underway and will be published as a separate document at a later date. In addition to the updates in this document, new issues for the Town of Vail transportation system have come to light. These will be addressed in this document and include the following: · Connecting fixed guideway transit systems · Noise contour map for I-70 traffic · I-70 capping review · Traffic forecasting · Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) issues resolution Each of these issues will represent a different chapter in this document. In general, these issues were studied and completed individually but are brought together in this document so that all affected parties and agencies may view them as a whole system. This ensures better coordination by all agencies in making the transportation system efficient for the present as well as for the future. Summary of Updates, Additions, and Resolved Issues To provide ease of reference, each update and addition is summarized below with recommendations, if applicable. The issues from the original Transportation Master Plan that are either resolved or no longer applicable are also summarized below. Updates: Vail Village Deliveries The Vail Village Loading and Delivery Study was researched and prepared for the purpose of analyzing and understanding all the factors surrounding people and goods movement in and out of the Vail Village Commercial Core One. The study and this summary provide options and supporting background to help minimize or eliminate motorized vehicles (primarily Executive Summary iii Town of Vail delivery trucks) from the Commercial Core for the purpose of enhancing visitor enjoyment and safety. Based on analysis of the present loading and delivery system and the available options for the Commercial Core, short-term and long-term recommendations include the following: · Short-term 1. Use of Variable Message Signs (VMS) at key locations could direct skiers to the parking structures and inform them of appropriate skier drop-off locations. The VMS could also be used to direct loading and delivery traffic to available access routes, loading bays, and dispersed terminals. 2. Consideration should be given to a ticketing structure that penalizes the repeat offender of the loading zones in Vail while not affecting Village guests. First-time offenders pay the maximum hourly rate, and the rate for each subsequent offense is increased significantly. 3. There are several access points into the Village at the present time, only one of which (Checkpoint Charlie) is able to control the entry of delivery traffic. Most delivery vehicles enter the Commercial Core through Checkpoint Charlie, and many other vehicles enter from the other three access points to the Village, frequently against traffic. In reviewing traffic patterns, traffic flow, and entry access points to the Village, it was discovered there might be some opportunity to further limit access to the Village for all types of vehicles. By guiding vehicle entry to enforceable access points throughout the Commercial Core, the overall traffic volume is dispersed over several access routes. Further, the use of on-street loading bays can be better regulated. 4. The following planning and design function should be accomplished. · An operational and technology plan should be drawn up to implement a traffic management system based upon an electronic communication system that integrates real time VMS, GPS tracking, smart card, internet computer camera, and dispatch technology with operational and enforcement services. · A long-range plan should be developed that when implemented in phases will interconnect buildings with terminal facilities via back-of-house access routes accommodating hand or motorized carts. The plan should be implemented in conjunction with redevelopment of private property and streetscape improvements. · Amend loading standard in the zoning code to require enclosed (terminal) loading and delivery bays for a variety of truck types and sizes as part of large development and redevelopment projects. The excess capacity of each terminal should be integrated through developer agreements into the dispersed terminal system. 5. One issue that is a significant contributor to the problem of truck numbers and dwell time in the Commercial Core is the time some deliveries are made. Earlier delivery of goods could remove the majority of larger delivery vehicles from the Commercial Core before “guest hours.” This approach would be most effective if instituted in conjunction with improved signage and some changes in access and traffic flow in the Executive Summary iv Town of Vail Village. Stricter limitations could be put on Village access if delivery personnel could complete deliveries to all establishments before 7:00 a.m. · Long-term 1. Addition of several delivery bays as part of a dispersed terminal on the Land Exchange site (the Vail Front Door project at the base of Vista Bahn/the Lodge at Vail). To effectively service at least one-third to one-half of the Commercial Core, six to ten bays for large trucks would be required. 2. Include enclosed dispersed delivery terminals in large development and redevelopment projects. The Town should also seek opportunities to require or acquire additional delivery bays in these facilities. 3. Provide strategically located, heated pedestrian walkways in the Village and adjacent commercial areas, so that push hand carts, pallet jack size pull carts, and small motorized carts can better function in the winter. 4. Where practical, construction or provision for future construction of underground delivery tunnels with street level freight elevators to facilitate loading and deliveries between buildings and dispersed delivery terminals should be done in conjunction with large development and redevelopment projects. 5. Construction of a dispersed delivery terminal with one bay for large trucks or four to eight bays for small cargo vans within an automobile parking structure on the P3&J site on Hanson Ranch Road. 6. Change current zoning code requiring additional on or off-site storage requirements per retail square foot for businesses in the Village. 7. Change current zoning code concerning required delivery space. The current zoning code requires delivery space to be ten feet by 25 feet, which is not adequate. Bars, restaurants, and hotels which require delivery of food and beverages should have one to two or more spaces, twelve feet wide and 35 to 50 feet long. This would accommodate most delivery vehicles. The code should allow for required loading bays to be located in a nearby dispersed delivery tunnel. 8. Design dispersed delivery terminals in appropriate locations so that cargo from a large truck can be transferred to a small cargo van. These would access a dispersed cargo van delivery terminal or bay located closer to the delivery destination. 9. Increase the availability of close-in restricted parking spaces within controlled access private parking structures. These would accommodate the delivery needs of residents, maintenance and construction personnel, business owners, and parcel carriers using small cargo vans and pick-ups. This will contribute to the reduced use of on-street loading bays. Restricted parking spaces could be located in existing and future parking structures built for automobiles. Parking (summary to be provided by FHU) To be completed as a separate document at a later date. Executive Summary v Town of Vail In-Town Shuttle Bus System As a response to space limitations, driver shortages, and higher costs, the Town of Vail is evaluating replacing the In-Town Shuttle buses with an alternative transit system. Such a system would have to be capable of carrying 5,000 people per hour (the current peak demand is approximately 4,000 people per hour) and effectively serve a route approximately 1.5 miles in length. The route would have to be similar to the current bus system route while effectively maximizing both ridership and system operations. This update is to determine the best options, from a range of opportunities, for providing mass transit for the Town of Vail In- Town Shuttle bus route. These options are being presented to address the increased demand and other issues discussed below on the In-Town Shuttle. The bus route is roughly a three-mile loop from Vail Village to Lionshead. The analysis of all potential options for the In-Town Shuttle system resulted in the following technologies for final consideration: · Power Unit/Trailer Combination Units · Low-floor Buses · Articulated Transit Buses · Low-floor, Articulated Buses · Guided Busway · Automated Guideway Transit (AGT): · SK · Cableliner DCC · Aeromovel Based on analysis of the remaining technologies and input from two focus group meetings attended by residents and businesses within the Town of Vail, a set of short-term and long- term recommendations for the In-Town Shuttle bus route have been developed and include the following: · Short-term 1. Develop an Express Bus Route from Vail Village to Lionshead – Vail Transit should consider an In-Town Express Bus route between Vail Village and Lionshead. This route would run along the Frontage Road to provide for a quicker, more direct route between the two areas. The express route could also make use of a low-floor, articulated bus. In keeping with the character and space available in the Village Core area, the In-Town Shuttle is better suited for the use of 40-foot buses. However, an express route on the Frontage Road could utilize a low-floor, articulated bus to increase the capacity. 2. Purchase Low-Emissions Vehicles - To address the problem related to smell/air quality, Vail Transit should consider selecting buses that run on compressed natural gas (CNG) and produce lower emissions. Executive Summary vi Town of Vail 3. Improved Information Technology and Information Displays – Electronic message boards which provide real time information should be placed at the Transportation Center, as well as other key stops along the route. Real time information along the route is extremely valuable to transit riders. Such information requires the deployment of an automatic vehicle location system (AVL) to track buses (Vail Transit already has such a system through NEXTbus). The AVL data can be converted into bus arrival times, which can be transmitted to bus stops. 4. Extend In-Town Shuttle Route to Cascade Village – If demand warrants, the In-Town Shuttle route should be extended west to serve Cascade Village. While discussion at the two focus groups held on September 21st, 2001 indicated that the existing In- Town Shuttle route should be extended to serve Cascade Village, Vail Transit should conduct an on/off survey on its West Vail Green and Red routes to determine the number of riders who currently board and/or deboard at the Cascade Village stop and where they are coming from and going to, to better determine the level of demand for a service extension. Extending the In-Town Shuttle route to Cascade Village will add approximately one- half of a mile to each run. This additional mileage would allow vehicles to complete their loops in 50 minutes as opposed to the current 40 minutes, and would not add any substantial cost to the service. · Long-term 1. Develop Guided Busway – If the Town of Vail continues to grow as expected, and capacity on the shuttle needs to be increased to 5,000 pph, Vail Transit should consider the development of a guided busway to run between Lionshead and Main Vail/Cascade Village. The use of a guided busway would allow vehicles to run on shorter headways and therefore carry additional passengers during peak hours. 2. Install Transit-Activated Signal at High Volume Intersections along Frontage Road – At intersections such as East Lionshead Circle and Frontage Road, buses have difficulty making left-hand turns from the minor street (East Lionshead) onto the major street (Frontage). The Town of Vail could look to install a transit-activated signal system that involves detecting the presence of a bus and, depending on the system logic and the traffic situation, then give the transit vehicle special treatment. The system could give a green signal during peak periods for buses waiting to enter onto the Frontage Road. In addition, real time control technologies can consider not only the presence of a bus, but the bus adherence to schedule and the volume of other traffic. Outlying Bus System This update includes a West Vail route structure review based on the West Vail Red Loop and the West Vail Green Loop. Ridership, schedules, and route information are provided as Executive Summary vii Town of Vail well as short-term and long-term recommendations to streamline the existing route. Also included in this analysis is discussion of a potential undercrossing of I-70 to be constructed in the Simba Run area. In particular, the effects to the West Vail bus route from this undercrossing are determined. Recommendations for the West Vail bus route include the following: · Short-term 1. Streamline Current West Vail Schedules – Vail Transit should change the current schedules, so that buses operating on the West Vail Green and West Vail Red routes depart at the same time. This would provide more balanced east-west service along the North and South Frontage roads and alleviate safety issues generated by transit users having to cross I-70 at-grade to access bus stops along the opposite frontage road. In the winter, this would mean that buses on each route make their first departure from the Transportation Center at 5:45 a.m. Streamlining these schedules would also make the system easier to understand and utilize, which could generate additional ridership. 2. Improved Route Identification – While each of Vail Transit’s routes have names and are color-coded, a number, letter, or number and letter designation should also be used to help lead passengers through a trip. The number, letter, or number and letter designation, along with the route name should be displayed on each bus and any printed maps. In addition, vehicles should have some indication of the direction they are going (e.g. West Vail Green Red – North Frontage) so that the new riders can better understand the system. 3. Elimination of Red Sandstone School Stop on West Vail Green and Lionsridge Loop Routes – To make the routes in the West Vail area run more efficiently, two of the routes, West Vail Green and Lionsridge Loop, should eliminate stopping at Red Sandstone School. This route would continue to be served by the West Vail Red and Sandstone routes. The elimination of this stop would reduce the running time of the West Vail Green route and allow vehicles serving the Lionsridge Loop to reach their primary service area faster. 4. Installation of Trailblazer Signs – Trailblazer signs that direct riders to the nearest stop or stops should be installed on major streets and other key strategic stops throughout West and East Vail. These signs would satisfy the need for approach information, and thus should be compatible with route guidance information with regard to location labels, directions, and route designations. Metal trailblazer signs with the appropriate route guidance information can cost anywhere between $500 and $1,000. Executive Summary viii Town of Vail · Long-term 1. Purchase of Additional Low-floor, Articulated Buses – If West Vail continues to grow over the next few years as expected, Vail Transit should consider purchasing two additional low-floor, articulated buses to handle the expected increase in demand. These vehicles should be used on the West Vail Green and Red routes. Low-floor, articulated buses have a 33 percent greater capacity than regular low-floor vehicles. 2. Incorporation of Bus Stops at Simba Run Underpass – While the use of the Simba Run underpass to restructure the West Vail Red and/or West Vail Green routes will not provide any service enhancement or increase in ridership, additional bus stops should be located at each end of the proposed Simba Run underpass along North and South Frontage Roads to improve passenger access to the system and increase safety. These additional stops would serve the West Vail Red and West Vail Green routes, as well as the Lionsridge Loop in the winter. 3. Incorporation of Stops at Lionshead Intermodal Facility – Following completion of the Lionshead Intermodal Facility, Vail Transit should add this location as a stop on the West Vail Green, West Vail Red, and In-Town Shuttle routes. The facility will include significant parking and should become a key transfer point for transit service, which will increase system ridership. In addition to the West Vail bus route, a discussion of the Downvalley bus system (the ECO system) is included. A bus service review is provided and includes information on routing, schedules, and ridership as well as short-term and long-term recommendations to provide more efficient routes. Recommendations for the Downvalley bus system include the following: · Short-term 1. Variable Lane System and GPS at Transportation Center – The transit plaza could be changed to a variable lane system rather than the current assigned lanes for each route. This would include a variable message system to direct buses into certain decks when they arrive. This would allow for staggered bus arrivals, and therefore add more capacity. The variable message system could be incorporated with a Global Positioning System (GPS), a system that allows a central control system to track the location of all buses at all times. This type of system would allow for greater capacities of buses from downvalley routes rather than the current single lane that is assigned for ECO routes. Executive Summary ix Town of Vail 2. Express Service on Vail to Edwards Route – To reduce the travel time for commuters and other passengers traveling from downvalley locations to Vail and generate additional ridership, express service should be provided on the Vail to Edwards route. This can be done by making some of the existing runs into an express run with limited stops, or by adding an express run, which may require additional vehicles. · Long-term 1. Impact of the IMC on the Eagle Valley Transportation System – If the IMC rail line is constructed between Vail and the Eagle County Airport, two of the existing Eagle Valley Transportation routes – the Vail to Edwards and Vail to Dotsero routes – would essentially be providing redundant service. To eliminate this service redundancy and make the system function better, these routes should be converted into a feeder service, which would serve new rail stations in Edwards and Dotsero. Feeder routes would be designed to serve residential areas in each town, with runs scheduled to meet arriving and departing trains. Trail System Interface In the original Transportation Master Plan, the 1990 trail system is described and mapped. Recommendations are also included for new trails to be constructed that would tie in with the existing trail system and create a better-rounded system. This update provides information on trails that have been built in the Town of Vail since 1990 (from the recommendations made). Each new trail is described in terms of location and physical characteristics, and a map is included to illustrate the locations of the new trails. In addition, the recommendations made in 1990 have been re-prioritized to make a high priority of trail improvements that have not yet been implemented. In addition to the re-prioritization of the 1990 trail recommendations, the Town has also identified additional trail links that it considers to be of high priority. These include the following: 1. Lionshead Bypass – from the skier bridge in Lionshead, bypassing Lionshead, and connecting to the existing trail system behind Tree Tops Condominiums 2. Vail Village Bypass – from Vail Road near Checkpoint Charlie, to Vista Bahn 3. Sunburst Road Bypass – from the golf course clubhouse to the west end of Katsos Ranch Path Appendix C1 is a portion of the Eagle County Trails Master Plan. This appendix is included to illustrate how the trail system in the Town of Vail ties in with the Eagle County Trails Master Plan. Executive Summary x Town of Vail For reference, Appendix C2 includes the trail maps from the original Transportation Master Plan. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes In 1990, peak hour traffic volumes were collected at 26 intersections along the Frontage Roads in Vail. These counts were taken in March and July during peak weekends. This update includes counts in 2000 at the same intersections in March and July during peak weekends. The counts in 2000 differ because eight of the intersections from the 1990 counts have been reconstructed as four roundabouts; two in West Vail and two in Vail Village, all providing access to and from I-70. The results of the traffic counts are provided as Appendix A1. Appendix A2 also provides peak hour traffic counts completed by Felzburg Holt & Ullevig in September 2000 for the Vail Village area. These counts were not conducted for the 1990 Transportation Plan but are included here for reference. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis The LOS Analysis update provides LOS for the intersections studied in the original Transportation Master Plan. This update also includes LOS for the newly constructed roundabouts in West Vail and Vail Village. All intersections along the Frontage Road were found to maintain a LOS of C or better, a standard for the Town of Vail, with the exceptions of Vail Valley Drive West (LOS D), Matterhorn Circle (LOS E), and Westhaven Drive (LOS F). Recommendations for these intersections include the following: 1. Traffic signals. Although the Town of Vail has not used traffic signals in the past to maintain the character of the Town, they are still a feasible solution and could be considered. 2. Traffic directors during peak periods of travel. 3. Roundabouts at these intersections. Although the space requirements at the intersections with poor LOS would indicate that roundabouts are not a feasible solution, this possibility should be further examined, as roundabouts are effective tools in creating adequate flow conditions at an intersection. 4. An all-way stop installed at the intersection (this would bring the LOS to C). Implementation Process The implementation process includes a scheduled plan of action for certain elements within the Transportation Master Plan Update. Transportation system elements within the Update should be prioritized as short-term (one to five years), mid-term (six to ten years), and long- term (eleven to 20 years). Recommendations have not been made concerning priorities for Executive Summary xi Town of Vail the Town as priorities usually change, depending on what is most appropriate at that time. The Town of Vail should develop a flexible plan for prioritizing the recommendations included in this Update. This prioritization plan should remain open and flexible as any changes in priorities may affect other plan elements. An individual chapter is not included to address this element. Plan Monitoring and Updating The original Plan included continuous monitoring and periodic updates of the Transportation Plan to include actions such as periodic traffic counts and a formal plan update every five years. This update to the Transportation Master Plan serves the purpose of updating changes that have taken place in the transportation system for the Town of Vail since 1990. An individual chapter is not included to address this element. Issue that is resolved and no longer applicable: I-70 Access In the original Transportation Master Plan, I-70 access was addressed because of the poor traffic flow at two of the three interchanges (West Vail and Main Vail interchanges). The report outlines the physical and operational characteristics of the interchanges, goals regarding access to I-70, additional crossing capacity of I-70 at these locations, and alternatives to solve the congestion problems at these interchanges. The issue has since been resolved with the construction of roundabouts at these interchanges – two roundabouts to replace the four intersections at West Vail, and two roundabouts to replace the four intersections at Main Vail. Additions: Connecting Fixed Guideway Transit Systems Two rail systems that have been proposed are the Inter-Mountain Connection (IMC) and the Colorado Intermountain Fixed Guideway Authority (CIFGA). The IMC is a commuter rail that would primarily use existing tracks and run from Vail to the Eagle County Airport. The CIFGA system is a fixed guideway system that would run from Denver International Airport (DIA) to Vail and eventually the Eagle County Airport. This addition to the Transportation Master Plan addresses these two systems and how they would affect the transportation system in Vail. This chapter also includes recommendations for alignments and station locations in the Vail area based on topography and proximity to activity centers. Mapping is provided in Appendix E to show potential alignments for the fixed guideway system. Potential alignments for the CIFGA system include the following: Executive Summary xii Town of Vail · Dowd Junction The CIFGA alignment could enter Vail by way of Dowd Canyon on the existing Union Pacific (U.P.) Railroad tracks. Just before the crossing of I-70 over Highway 6 (Dowd Junction), the alignment would curve to the east, paralleling the existing bike path. At the point where the bike path crosses under I-70, the alignment could follow one of two options. Option 1 would be a tunnel cut through the slope of the mountain north of I-70. This option would parallel I- 70 until the entrance to West Vail, at which point the median opens up and the alignment would cross over to the median. This option would be most beneficial if I-70 was not capped. Option 2 would bring the alignment into the median under the proposed capping of I-70 through Dowd Canyon, in between the eastbound and westbound lanes. Two other options exist for the alignment in the Dowd Canyon area. Option 3 through this area involves the diversion of the alignment before Dowd Canyon. As I-70 curves to the east and back before Dowd Canyon, the alignment could continue south (instead of curving back west and into Dowd Canyon) and tunnel through into Dowd Canyon just west of West Vail. At this point the alignment could cross into the median and continue into West Vail. Option 4 for the Dowd Junction area includes following the existing rail line into Minturn and then tunneling north back to I-70. This option would be considered because of potential grade problems at Dowd Junction. Options 1 and 2 might face difficulties in creating a rail line that could negotiate the steep grade at the intersection of I-70 and Highway 6. · West Vail For either option discussed above, the alignment would be in the median as CIFGA enters West Vail. The CIFGA alignment would remain in the median, whether or not the capping was to be constructed. A station location could also be constructed in the median for West Vail access at a location determined to be the most practical. This station would include pedestrian crossings to access areas north and/or south of I-70 and the Frontage Roads in West Vail. · Main Vail The CIFGA alignment would remain in the median through Main Vail as well, with potential station locations at the proposed North Day Lot Transportation Center in Lionshead and the Vail Transportation Center for pick-up and drop-off of riders. These stations could be constructed in the median of I-70 with pedestrian crossings to access areas north and/or south of I-70 and the Frontage Roads. · East Vail The CIFGA alignment could also remain in the median through East Vail and continue east outside of the Vail city limits. As the IMC is proposed as an interim solution until completion of the CIFGA project, all alignment recommendations might be temporary. These sections could be removed as Executive Summary xiii Town of Vail sections of the CIFGA project are completed. However, the IMC could also remain useful as a local service, providing more frequent stops in Vail for downvalley commuters. Any decisions regarding the temporary or permanent use of the IMC would be decided by the Town of Vail upon further studies and public involvement. Recommendations for potential IMC alignments include the following: · Dowd Junction and West Vail The IMC alignment would parallel the CIFGA alignment entering Dowd Canyon and traveling through West Vail (using Option 1 or 2). Shortly after passing by the West Vail Roundabouts and the potential station location in West Vail, the IMC alignment would leave the median, crossing over to the area between I-70 eastbound and South Frontage Road. The alignment would continue to parallel the CIFGA alignment. · Main Vail The alignment would continue to use the space between I-70 eastbound and South Frontage Road, while sharing the potential station locations at Lionshead and the Vail Transportation Center with the CIFGA for pick-up and drop-off. The IMC is proposed to end at the Vail Transportation Center, at which point the line would go back downvalley along the same route. Noise Contour Map This addition includes the creation of a noise contour map based on existing and future traffic volumes in the I-70 corridor. Noise measurements were taken at 50 locations throughout the Town of Vail to determine current noise levels produced primarily by I-70. These existing measurements were used for the development of a noise model. The noise model accounts for terrain features and traffic conditions. A future noise model was then developed based on known development plans and traffic forecasts. The noise model includes planning level noise abatement options. A map of the noise contours with explanatory text will be included as a part of this section in Appendix F2. I-70 Capping Review The Town of Vail has expressed the desire to explore other options to reduce noise levels and bring a greater sense of community cohesion to the Town of Vail. Under consideration is the “capping” of I-70. This would involve the tunneling of I-70 under the existing alignment, using the land above for development or open space purposes. This addition to the Transportation Master Plan provides an analysis of other capping projects completed throughout the country, critical issues that the Town of Vail would face in considering such a project, and recommendations for locations and land use in constructing a cap. Appendix E provides mapping for potential capping areas along I-70 through Vail. Executive Summary xiv Town of Vail Traffic Model From existing traffic counts, peak hour link volumes were documented and compared with previous 1990 link volumes. Using this information as a base, a spreadsheet-based travel demand model has been prepared for the Frontage Roads and major intersections in the Town of Vail. The model forecasts future traffic based on socio-economic data (housing, population, and employment). Eight traffic analysis zones have been used for the model and these include the following: I-70 East, I-70 West, East Vail, Vail Village, Lionshead, West Vail south of I-70, West Vail north of I-70, and Other Vail north of I-70. The model has been set up for multiple forecast years, and ten and twenty-year forecasts have been conducted. Appendices H1-H5 document the model structure and assumptions made. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) Issues Resolution A PEIS was recently initiated by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for I-70 between Denver and Glenwood Springs (see I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS, Summary of Issues, J.F. Sato & Associates, June 2000). To prepare for this PEIS planning effort, issues that could potentially affect transportation in Vail were identified and discussed during a focus group attended by residents representing a wide array of interests and backgrounds. This addition to the Transportation Master Plan identifies these issues and potential solutions to the issues that have been recommended by the Town of Vail. The issues and solutions are also presented in the form of a matrix to indicate how different solutions can potentially address more than one issue. Recent or Ongoing Studies In addition to the studies described in this update, other recent or ongoing studies are taking place in the Town of Vail. Some of these are summarized below. Transportation Center Work in Lionshead The North Day Lot Transportation Center is proposed in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (Design Workshop, Inc., December 15, 1998). The Transportation Center would serve to create a major new point of entry into the pedestrian and retail core of Lionshead. It would also play a role in providing for a central transit stop in Lionshead. The Transportation Center would consist of: · Local/regional shuttles · Local/regional transit and charter buses · Short-term skier drop-off area · Pedestrian portal · Combination of large central service and delivery facility · Construction under a structured parking deck · Access to central Lionshead by freight elevators and a service tunnel · Accommodation for a peak volume of 15-20 delivery vehicles and storage space Executive Summary xv Town of Vail The Redevelopment Master Plan views the Transportation Center as a priority project as it is a prerequisite for other critical projects discussed in the Plan. Roadway Functional Planning along South Frontage Road for Simba Run Crossing The scope of work for this project involved conceptual design development for three elements: 1. Improvements to the South Frontage Road between Ford Park and just west of Cascade Village 2. A two-lane I-70 underpass at Simba Run 3. Related North Frontage Road improvements at the intersection of the new Simba Run Underpass Other elements of this project: 1. Feasibility of the improvements identified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan 2. Improvements to drainage at Town Hall and access control 3. Feasibility of the South Frontage Road realignment near the VA shops 4. Space and height constraints at the pedestrian overpass Noise 7-1 Town of Vail Chapter 7: Noise As a measure of the Town of Vail Critical Strategies, a noise study was conducted to identify noise impacts created by the traffic on Interstate Highway 70 (I-70) in the Town of Vail. The study included the following tasks: · Analyzing existing noise levels · Determining noise impacts · Determining future noise levels based on projected future traffic volumes · Performing sensitivity analysis to differences in speed, variations of receiver locations, increases in truck traffic, and increases in overall traffic volume · Determining the affect of noise barriers in various locations The noise impacts were analyzed in accordance with the Colorado Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) noise policy (CDOT Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines, February 1, 1995, See Appendix F1). Traffic noise level predictions were made for two conditions: existing 2000 and year 2020. Site conditions, including horizontal and vertical layout as well as topographical and traffic information, were used as input to the STAMINA 2.0 model. This is the approved noise model used by CDOT. General results of the traffic noise modeling effort are reported below. The results of the noise study indicate that receivers will experience traffic noise levels in excess of CDOT’s noise abatement criteria under both the existing 2000 and year 2020 traffic levels. Currently, approximately 25 percent of all the tax assessor’s parcels in the Town of Vail exceed a 66-decibel noise level. This percentage represents only residential parcels that exceed the 66-decibel noise level out of the total number of parcels in the Town Noise 7-2 Town of Vail of Vail. Other types of land use including schools, hospitals, parks and hotels are not included in the 25 percent (these other uses represent a small percent of the total number of parcels in the Town of Vail). A description of common noise terminology, a summary of CDOT’s noise policy, a description of the noise modeling process, results of the sensitivity analysis, and noise mitigation analysis are discussed below. Noise Terminology Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, which is often the source of much confusion. What humans hear are pressure fluctuations in the air that are created when something vibrates, such as an engine or the cone of a loudspeaker. The range of pressure fluctuations the human ear can detect is extremely large (20 to 20,000,000 Pascals, the metric unit of pressure). This range is unwieldy to discuss, so the decibel (dB) scale is used to compress the numbers to a more manageable form. On this scale the range of human hearing is approximately 0 dB (threshold of hearing) to 140 dB (threshold of pain). Some typical noise levels are shown in Table 7-1. Note that these levels are in dB(A), not dB. The “A” denotes that the noise levels have been adjusted according to the A-weighting network. The A- weighting network adjusts noise levels to reflect the fact that the human ear is more sensitive to high frequencies than to low frequencies. A-weighted decibels are most often discussed in reference to outdoor noise situations and are used exclusively in this analysis. Noise 7-3 Town of Vail Table 7-1: Typical Noise Levels Noise Source Noise Level (dB(A)) Amplified rock band 120 Commercial jet takeoff at 61 meters (200 ft) 110 Community warning siren at 31 meters (100 ft) 100 Busy urban street 90 Construction equipment at 15 meters (50 ft) 80 Freeway traffic at 15 meters (50 ft) 70 Normal conversation at 2 meters (6 ft) 60 Typical office interior 50 Soft radio music 40 Typical residential interior 30 Typical whisper at 2 meters (6 ft) 20 Human breathing 10 Threshold of hearing 0 Outdoor noise levels are almost constantly fluctuating, particularly near a highway. The unit called the equivalent average sound level (Leq) is used to quantify the fluctuating noise level into a single number. The Leq has the same sound energy as the time-varying noise level over a stated time period (essentially the average noise level). The time period used in highway noise analysis is one hour. All noise levels discussed in this report are A-weighted, hourly Leqs representing the loudest hour of traffic. The loudest hour of traffic is usually represented when traffic volumes on the roadway reach Level of Service C. Levels of Service C traffic volumes are defined as traffic running at stable operations, however, the ability to maneuver and change lanes in mid-block locations may be restricted. Longer queues, adverse signal coordination or both, may contribute to lower travel speeds. Noise 7-4 Town of Vail CDOT’s Noise Policy The CDOT has adopted the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) policy and guidance for highway traffic noise analysis and abatement (see Appendix F1). This guidance sets a standard to determine when federal and/or state funds can be used for noise mitigation related to highway traffic noise. The guidance establishes standards for noise abatement on both new construction projects (Type I projects) and for noise abatement on an existing highway (Type II projects). This noise analysis uses the noise abatement guidance for a Type II project. The standards used by FHWA and CDOT are used as representative criteria so the Town of Vail has a recognized basis for considering noise impacts. The FHWA policy on noise mitigation states that noise mitigation must be considered for any receptor (e.g. a residence) or group of receptors (e.g. a neighborhood) where predicted traffic noise levels, using traffic volumes and roadway conditions projected 20 years into the future, approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria (NAC). The NAC establish the criteria to determine noise impacts on receivers. Relevant NAC are shown in Table 7-2. The CDOT NAC assume traffic noise is considered to “approach” a criterion at a level 1 dB(A) less than the criterion (e.g. 66 dB(A) for Category B). Table 7-2: CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria Activity Category Leq* (dB(A)) Description of Activity Category B 67 (Exterior) Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 (Exterior) Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in the category above (this includes retail businesses). * Hourly A-weighted equivalent level for the noisiest hour of the day in the design year In 1996, the FHWA released an interim final rule that revised the FHWA regulation that allows federal participation for Type II projects. The interim final rule states that for Type II projects, noise abatement measures will only be approved for projects that were approved by the state Department of Transportation (DOT) before November 28, 1995, or are proposed along lands where land development or substantial construction predated the existence of any highway. The FHWA stated that the implementation of Type II projects is a strictly voluntary decision made by a DOT and there are no special or separate federal funds to provide highway traffic noise abatement. Noise 7-5 Town of Vail Currently in Colorado, the use of state transportation funds for noise abatement is only considered for highway construction on a new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway, Type I projects. However, until 1999, CDOT had a Type II project program in place. Appendix F1 shows the priority listing of projects falling under the previous Type II program. The Town of Vail had four projects on the list. One of those projects was second on the list for funding, before the Type II program was cancelled. During the previous Type II program in Colorado, Type II projects were funded by both federal dollars as well as state transportation dollars. The amount of federal and state dollars a project was eligible for was based on the roadway classification. While FHWA dollars are no longer available for Type II noise abatement projects, the FHWA currently states that some state highway associations allow a third party to pay the difference between the actual cost of a traffic noise barrier and the cost that is deemed to be reasonable. The FHWA recognizes that this is a method that may provide abatement for traffic noise problems that might otherwise go unmitigated. Noise Analysis A traffic noise analysis along I-70 through the Town of Vail was conducted using the FHWA’s computerized noise prediction model, STAMINA 2.0 (using Colorado emission data). This program evaluates the noise energy produced by traffic in a segment of roadway based on the traffic volume, speed, and types of vehicles using the roadway. Site-specific horizontal and vertical conditions are also input to STAMINA in addition to traffic volume and speed data. Using existing mapping of the I-70 corridor through Vail, an XYZ-coordinate system was created. The alignment of the roadway (I-70) was translated into the XYZ-coordinate system. By inputting the alignment as XYZ-coordinates to the STAMINA noise model, the model recreates the alignment of the roadway. Noise readings were also taken along the I-70 corridor though Vail. A total of 50 readings were selected to serve as a representative receiver sample. Each reading location (representative receiver site) was translated to the XYZ-coordinate system based on the existing mapping. The representative receiver site coordinates were also input to the STAMINA model. The STAMINA model created an electronic schematic of the I-70 corridor through Vail, including the representative receiver site locations. By inputting the traffic volume, speed, and types of vehicles using the I-70 corridor, the model predicts the noise levels at each representative receiver site based on the receiver position from the roadway. Since the model does not take into account any obstacles between the receiver and the roadway which may prevent sound energy from reaching the receivers (e.g., buildings, vegetation, and partial barriers), the representative receiver readings served as validation Noise 7-6 Town of Vail measurements to determine the amount of sound energy blocked at each representative receiver location. The amount of sound energy that is blocked by obstacles is called the shielding factor. This shielding factor was used to calibrate the noise model. The model also does not take into account sound energy that may be reflected off surrounding terrain or structures that may increase the amount of sound energy experienced at a receiver location. The validation measurements account for this reflection. Two noise models were created. One model produces the existing year 2000 noise levels and the other model predicts the future year 2020 noise levels, based on predicted traffic growth. Both of the models use average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes. Analysis of the model’s sensitivity to differences in speed, variations of receiver locations, and increases in truck traffic were also performed. Noise Receptors Studied The study area defined for the noise analysis is shown in Figure 7-1. A total of 50 representative receiver sites were selected to serve as a representative sample within the project area. The receivers are identified as receiver 1 (R1) though receiver 50 (R50). The receivers were modeled at five feet above ground elevation (representing a standing adult) and were measured at an area of outdoor activity associated with each location. Figure 7-1 shows the approximate location of the noise receivers analyzed in the study. Based on the modeling, a noise contour map was prepared and then the total number of affected receptors was determined using the Town of Vail Geographic Information System (GIS). The noise contour map for the existing condition is shown in Appendix F2. Traffic Characteristics In order to determine the traffic noise impacts associated with I-70, existing and predicted noise levels were modeled for both the 2000 existing condition and the year 2020 predicted condition. Existing 2000 traffic volumes were determined by assuming a straight-line growth pattern between 1997 AADT counts (collected by CDOT) and 2020 predicted AADT counts (for 2020 traffic predictions, see Chapter 9: Traffic Model). Using hourly traffic counts collected by CDOT a peak hour factor of eight percent was determined. The hourly traffic counts collected by CDOT also provided an average of four percent medium trucks and seven percent heavy trucks on the roadway. The average speed used in the model was 70 miles per hour (mph), as validated with a speed study. Noise 7-7 Town of Vail The I-70 corridor through Vail is divided into four separate segments. The segment divisions are determined by different traffic characteristics. Table 7-3 illustrates the traffic volumes, type of traffic, and average speeds that each of the four segments carries. The categories of traffic volume, type of traffic, and average speed were used as input to the STAMINA model in order to predict noise levels along the I-70 corridor through Vail. Table 7-3: I-70 Segment Characteristics Segment Location in Vail I-70 Segment Number (Milepost) 2000 AADT (2-Way Traffic) 2020 AADT (2-Way Traffic) % Medium Trucks % Heavy Trucks % Passenger Cars Average Speed (mph) W. Vail 1 (171.43–173.32) 44178 68700 4.6 4.1 91.3 70 Central Vail 2 (173.32-176.03) 31048 49700 4.2 6.0 89.9 70 Central 3 (176.03-179.87) 24474 38300 4.2 7.6 88.1 70 E. Vail 4 (179.87-181.98) 20209 31600 4.0 9.0 87.0 70 Modeling Results A total of 50 representative receiver sites were analyzed to determine the level of noise impacts associated with the different locations along the I-70 corridor. The approximate location of each receiver is illustrated schematically in Figure 7-1. Existing noise levels were computed to be in a range from 47.2 dB(A) at a representative receiver site 1,125 feet from I-70 to 75.4 dB(A) at a representative receiver site 150 feet from I-70. Future conditions were computed to be in a range from 49.1 dB(A) at a representative receiver site 1,125 feet to 77.5 dB(A) at a representative receiver site 150 feet from I-70. Table 7-4 shows the predicted noise level reading and the difference between the existing noise level and the 2020 predicted noise level. Noise 7-8 Town of Vail Re c e i v e r l o c a t i o n s w i t h n o i s e l e v e l s c u r r e n t l y i n ex c e ss o f 6 6 d B ( A ) a r e b o l d e d Fi g u r e 7 -1: R e c e i v e r L o c a t i o n s Noise 7-9 Town of Vail Table 7-4: Noise Model Results Receiver Receiver Distance from Roadway (feet) Existing 2000 Noise Energy Levels (dB(A)) 2020 Noise Energy Levels (dB(A)) Difference in dB(A) (2020-existing) R1 150 70.0 72.0 2.0 R2 530 60.1 62.0 1.9 R3 1275 59.1 61.0 1.9 R4 1150 54.5 56.4 1.9 R5 540 57.1 59.0 1.9 R6 275 61.4 63.3 1.9 R7 320 61.0 63.0 2.0 R8 625 63.3 65.4 2.1 R9 1000 61.5 63.6 2.1 R10 2100 58.9 61.0 2.1 R11 925 60.1 62.1 2.0 R12 300 61.3 63.3 2.0 R13 310 57.8 59.8 2.0 R14 670 61.1 63.1 2.0 R15 1475 60.3 62.4 2.1 R16 1430 59.3 61.3 2.0 R17 925 65.4 67.4 2.0 R18 150 75.4 77.5 2.1 R19 1900 56.0 58.0 2.0 R20 1550 52.5 54.5 2.0 R21 300 69.2 71.2 2.0 R22 1930 58.1 60.2 2.1 R23 170 61.9 63.9 2.0 R24 750 58.3 60.3 2.0 R25 1200 54.5 56.6 2.1 R26 1450 52.4 54.4 2.0 R27 650 62.9 64.9 2.0 R28 120 68.8 70.7 1.9 R29 680 55.4 57.3 1.9 R30 1080 54.7 56.6 1.9 Noise 7-10 Town of Vail Receiver Receiver Distance from Roadway (feet) Existing 2000 Noise Energy Levels (dB(A)) 2020 Noise Energy Levels (dB(A)) Difference in dB(A) (2020-existing) R31 1470 53.5 55.4 1.9 R32 1000 66.3 68.2 1.9 R33 750 53.2 55.2 2.0 R34 860 55.9 57.8 1.9 R35 250 57.6 59.5 1.9 R36 550 61.0 62.9 1.9 R37 900 61.5 63.5 2.0 R38 1100 59.7 61.6 1.9 R39 730 53.7 55.6 1.9 R40 770 56.3 58.3 2.0 R41 175 55.2 57.1 1.9 R42 1125 47.2 49.1 1.9 R43 580 56.1 58.0 1.9 R44 180 54.8 56.8 2.0 R45 540 54.6 56.6 2.0 R46 1050 58.3 60.3 2.0 R47 1650 51.0 52.7 1.7 R48 628 55.3 57.3 2.0 R49 600 52.7 54.7 2.0 R50 450 61.3 63.2 1.9 *Shaded rows represent receivers that exceed the 66-dB(A) approach threshold in the year 2020. Five of the representative receiver sites are found to have noise levels in excess of the noise impact criteria. These receivers, R1, R18, R21, R28, and R32 are currently above the 66- dB(A) noise level, noise abatement criteria for activity category B. Figure 7-1 shows these affected receivers in bold-faced type. For the year 2020, six of the representative receiver sites were predicted to have noise levels in excess of the noise impact criteria. These receivers, R1, R17, R18, R21, R28, and R32 are predicted to have noise levels above 66 dB(A) in the year 2020, based on projected traffic increases. The largest noise levels will occur for receivers located closest to I-70 or with the best line of sight of I-70. However, an increase in the distance from I-70 does not always reflect a decrease in noise level. Each receiver may have a different shielding effect based on obstacles between the receiver and the roadway, which may prevent sound energy from Noise 7-11 Town of Vail reaching a receiver site (e.g., buildings, vegetation, and partial barriers). Table 7-5 defines a range of noise levels for the distance from I-70 through the Vail area for both the existing and the predicted 2020 conditions. In all cases the difference between the existing noise levels and the predicted 2020 noise levels should not be detectable to the human ear (i.e., less than 3 dB(A), studies have shown a 3-dB(A) increase is barely detectable by the human ear). Table 7-5: Noise Level Ranges Based on Distance from I-70 Distance From I-70 (ft) Existing Noise Level Range (dB(A)) 2020 Noise Level Range (dB(A)) 200 53-76 57-78 400 57-70 59-72 600 53-62 55-64 800 53-64 55-66 1000 56-67 58-69 1200 47-60 49-62 1400 59* 61* 1600 52-60 54-62 1800 51* 53* 2000 56-60 58-61 *only one representative receiver located within this distance from I-70 Appendix F2 shows noise contour maps developed to estimate noise levels at any location in the Vail area. Contour maps of the existing 2000 condition as well as the predicted 2020 condition have been produced. These should be used as a guide only, due to the variability of noise levels in the Vail area caused by shielding and reflection. The maps help to identify the actual number of receiver sites in the Vail area that are affected by noise levels. Actual noise measurements should be taken in order to determine the exact noise levels at any specific location. Receiver sites may vary from single-unit structures to structures housing multiple units. The actual number of affected receivers is based on the number of units per structure. Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was performed based on differences in speed, variations of receiver locations, increases in truck traffic, and increases in overall traffic volume. For the categories Noise 7-12 Town of Vail of speed, receiver locations, and truck traffic, two sensitivity runs were performed. Overall traffic volume sensitivity is displayed as a table. While noise levels are predicted to increase based on the sensitivity analyses, the average increases represent levels that are not normally perceptible to the human ear. Studies have shown a 3-dB(A) increase in noise level is barely detectable by the human ear. Speed The existing year 2000 noise model was altered to model the existing traffic volumes at 60 mph and 55 mph. The analysis showed that on average, an increase of 0.7 dB(A) occurs with every five mph increase in speed. Noise level increases would be barely detectable over a 20 mph range (<3 dB(A)). Receiver Locations The existing year 2000 noise model was altered to model differing heights at the representative receiver sites. This shows how noise energy changes by level within multi- level structures. All receivers were modeled at ten feet higher than initial elevation and 20 feet higher than the initial elevation. The analysis showed that on average, an increase of 0.04 dB(A) occurred for the first ten-foot increase in elevation and an increase of 0.002 dB(A) occurred for the second ten-foot increase in elevation. This analysis assumed that each level of a multi-level structure has the same shielding factor. In other words, each level of a multi-level structure has the same amount of sound energy blocked by obstacles (e.g., buildings, vegetation, and partial barriers). This assumption may not hold true in all cases. As the height increases for the receiver, the shielding effects realized at a lower level may have no effect on a receiver at a higher level. In areas of heavier vegetation, noise levels are often lower at ground level due to these shielding effects. Truck Traffic Increases The predicted year 2020 noise model was altered to model different percentages of truck traffic increase. The model analyzed an overall increase of two percent and an overall increase of four percent of trucks in the traffic mix. The analysis showed that on average, an increase of 0.3 dB(A) occurred for a two percent increase in truck traffic and an increase of 0.6 dB(A) occurred for a four percent increase in truck traffic. Noise level increases would be barely detectable up to 3 dB(A). Noise 7-13 Town of Vail Traffic Volume Increases The predicted year 2020 noise model uses an AADT volume of between 31,600 vehicles and 68,700 vehicles, depending on the segment of I-70. This AADT is an estimated increase from existing AADT. A sensitivity analysis of the relative noise level increase based on increased traffic volumes was performed. Table 7-6 demonstrates the relative noise level increase based on traffic volumes. Table 7-6: Relative Noise Level Increases Based on Traffic Volumes Traffic Volumes (Average Daily Traffic) Relative Noise Level (dB(A)) Noise Level Increase (per 5000 Vehicles per day) 40000 46.0 N/A 45000 46.5 0.5 50000 46.9 0.4 55000 47.4 0.4 60000 47.7 0.3 65000 48.1 0.3 70000 48.5 0.3 75000 48.8 0.3 80000 49.0 0.2 Future traffic volumes will also have an additive effect on the existing noise contour lines. The 2020 traffic predictions show the average traffic on I-70 is to increase by 57 percent of the existing traffic on I-70. This increased traffic produces an average increase of 2 dB(A) to the existing contour lines for the 2020 condition. Again, noise level increases would be barely detectable up to 3 dB(A). Short Duration Point Source Noise The noise produced from engine “jake” brakes and rumble strips were measured and analyzed to determine the effect of short duration point source noise on the overall noise levels produced by the general I-70 traffic. The average increase in noise based on short duration point source noise generated from “jake” brakes and rumble strips is shown in the tables below. The tables reflect the average dB(A) increase to be added to each of the existing contour lines to reflect the presence of short duration point sources. In general, “jake” brakes add 6 dB(A) at the source and rumble strips add 9 dB(A) at the source. This incremental increase in noise becomes smaller as the distance from I-70 increases. Table 7-7 shows the effect of jake brake noise and Table 7-8 shows the effect of rumble strip noise. Noise 7-14 Town of Vail Table 7-7: Decibel Increases Based on “Jake” Brake Noise Existing Noise Contour (dB(A)) Relative Decibel Increase (dB(A)) 70 2.0 66 1.0 60 0.5 Table 7-8: Decibel Increases Based on Rumble Strip Noise Existing Noise Contour (dB(A)) Relative Decibel Increase (dB(A)) 70 4.0 66 3.0 60 1.0 Noise 7-15 Town of Vail Noise Abatement Identifying Noise Mitigation Currently, representative receiver locations R1, R18, R21, R28, and R32 (representing approximately 540 receivers) were recognized as having noise levels above 66 dB(A). This is the level at which noise abatement is considered. In the year 2020, representative receiver locations R1, R17, R18, R21, R28, and R32 (representing approximately 600 receivers) were recognized as having noise levels above 66 dB(A). While these numbers reflect the number of receivers accounted for by the representative receiver locations, the numbers do not reflect the total number of affected receivers (those receivers that experience noise levels exceeding the 66-dB(A) approach criteria) located in the Town of Vail. In order to determine the total number of affected receivers, refer to the noise contour maps presented in Appendix F1. Mitigation Strategies There are many possible ways to reduce the noise levels produced by the traffic on I-70. Below is a list of possible mitigation strategies. Long Term Strategies (require construction) Barriers Berms Concrete walls (with and without form liners) Wood walls Glass walls Metal walls Absorptive walls Masonry walls Jersey Barriers Bury or cap I-70 White noise Noise Cancellation Pavement type Insulation Short Term Strategies (no construction) Enforcement Lower speed limits No passing for trucks Noise 7-16 Town of Vail Reduce volumes Noise Ordinances Noise Ordinances by time of day Engine Brake ordinances Variable message speed sign (VMS) Static truck warning sign In order to better understand the strategies listed above, pictures and descriptions are listed below. Long Term Strategies (requires construction) Barriers Noise abatement barriers are the most common type of highway noise mitigation. The CDOT currently considers barriers only for new construction, widening, or major realignment of highways. CDOT considers noise abatement of less than 5 dB(A) unreasonable due to the negligible human perception. Barrier effectiveness is usually limited to 10 to 12 dB(A), although some special techniques can improve barrier performance by 3 to 5 dB(A). In the Vail area, barriers are expected to be more effective on the south side of I-70 as most land use is lower than the roadway and the line of sight is easier to block. Noise barriers on the north side may not be effective for land uses located significantly above the roadway. Barrier cost varies depending upon type, style, and height. Berms may be constructed for as little as $0.5 million per mile, while structural barriers may average around $2.0 million per mile for the Vail area. There are several different types of barriers as presented below: · Berms. Noise attenuation berms have the advantage of being less expensive to construct and have the potential for landscaping. A disadvantage is that they require more space to construct. A typical noise berm in Vail is estimated to be approximately 60 feet wide. Berm in Vail Noise 7-17 Town of Vail · Concrete walls. Concrete noise abatement walls are becoming more common because of their longer life and ease of maintenance. Concrete walls can be simple walls or can be constructed with form liners that allow various designs (shown below). Form liners can be used on concrete walls to create various types of designs. Concrete Wall Form Liners Noise 7-18 Town of Vail · Wood walls. Previously a common type of construction in Colorado and other states, this type of noise abatement wall has fallen out of favor due to the shorter life span and higher maintenance cost. · Glass walls. Most of the research for glass walls has been done in Canada and Europe. Glass walls are currently not approved for use by CDOT due to concerns of highway glare, scratching, and cleaning maintenance. Glass Noise Wall, France Glass Noise Wall, France Plywood Noise Wall Noise 7-19 Town of Vail · Metal walls. Several manufacturers produce metal walls. These are typically metal panels that are supported by posts. · Absorptive walls. Absorptive noise abatement walls provide voids within the wall to “trap” noise. Absorptive walls have higher capital and maintenance costs, but can provide additional noise attenuation particularly when parallel barriers are constructed. · Masonry walls. CDOT’s current focus appears to be masonry walls. These can be built on site or pre- manufactured and installed as panels. Recent variations create a masonry feel with a concrete form liner. Absorptive Noise Wall (post and panel) Masonry Form Liner Wall Liner Wall Masonry Form Liner Wall I-25, Colorado Springs, (neighborhood side) Noise 7-20 Town of Vail · Jersey Barriers. Also known as a Type 4 guardrail, these 32-inch high concrete guardrails are common along state highways. In recent noise measurements conducted along State Highway 82, these barriers were found to reduce noise levels by approximately 2.5 dB(A) for receivers located at the same elevation as the roadway. These barriers would appear to provide similar noise abatement for many receivers located on the south side of I-70 within Vail and some receivers located on the north side of I-70 within Vail. Bury or cap I-70 Totally enclosing I-70 would prevent any highway noise from leaving the highway. However, both ends of the enclosure (tunnel entrances if a cut-and-cover tunnel was constructed) will produce higher levels of noise. These higher levels of noise would need to be mitigated. White noise This type of noise abatement is not used for highway noise. It is typically an indoor background noise generated to mask other noise. Noise Cancellation This is accomplished by creating an opposite and equal sound pressure wave to a known noise generator. It can be effective on very specific pieces of machinery or also equipment that is enclosed. This cannot be used for pavement noise and could only be used for engine and stack noise if each individual vehicle has a noise cancellation device installed. These devices are very specific and are not currently available for vehicles. Pavement type Open graded asphalt is generally considered to reduce tire noise by 2 to 4 dB (A) over dense graded asphalt. Noise reduction is due to the voids in the pavements caused by open (or uniform) grading. However, since there is no hard data or research on the subject, the FHWA’s official position is that they will not allow any adjustments in noise analysis or noise abatement (or allow states to do so) until additional research is done. It is thought that the noise abatement benefits are lost as the voids get filled up with dust, sand, and other material. Other benefits of open-graded asphalt are that it provides better drainage and therefore better traction in wet conditions. Europeans have been known to wash and vacuum their open-graded asphalt for these reasons. Asphalt is generally considered quieter than concrete pavement although studies by the State of Washington indicate that after seven years, concrete pavement becomes quieter due to wear. Noise 7-21 Town of Vail Insulation A form of noise mitigation that is very uncommon for highway traffic noise and is somewhat common for airport noise abatement is insulation. This technique only works for enclosed buildings and its effectiveness depends greatly on the insulating materials used. This is generally considered the most expensive form of mitigation. Since Vail is in a cold climate, most buildings are typically already well insulated. Short Term Strategies (no construction) Enforcement Recent speed data by the Vail Police Department indicated that average speeds on I-70 are approximately 70 mph. It is unknown if the presence of the radar trailer caused drivers to slow down. If better enforcement of speeds along I-70 resulted in a five mph reduction of average speeds, the expected noise reduction would be 0.7 dB(A). This noise level decrease is not normally perceptible to the human ear. Studies have shown a 3-dB(A) difference in noise level is barely detectable by the human ear. Lower Speed Limits Traffic speeds directly affect highway noise. This is primarily due to tire noise and is affected more by cars. In general, a ten mph reduction in average highway speed will reduce noise by 1.5 dB(A). If the average speed for trucks only was reduced by ten mph, the average noise would drop by about 0.7 dB(A). This noise level decrease is not normally perceptible to the human ear. Studies have shown a 3-dB(A) difference in noise level is barely detectable by the human ear. No passing for trucks This mitigation was suggested by a focus group of Vail property owners and residents. If restrictions on passing reduced overall speeds for trucks, noise could be reduced. This is not expected to result in any significant noise reduction. Reduce volumes This mitigation option was also raised by the focus group. The discussion considered that restrictions be placed on trucks such that a greater majority would take alternative east – west routes such as I-80 through Wyoming. A ten percent reduction in truck traffic is estimated to reduce noise by approximately 1.5 dB(A). This noise level decrease is not normally perceptible to the human ear. Studies have shown a 3-dB(A) difference in noise level is barely detectable by the human ear. Noise 7-22 Town of Vail Noise Ordinances Although the Town of Vail already has noise ordinances in place, additional ordinances or better enforcement could provide additional noise abatement. The current noise ordinance is 90 dB(A) at 25 feet for gross vehicle weight over 10,000 pounds. A truck conforming to the State Muffler Law traveling at 65 mph produces 86 dB(A) which conforms to the current noise ordinance. For I-70 truck traffic, noise ordinances could include reduced speeds, restrictions on engine “jake” brakes, and time restrictions. These would have to be coordinated and potentially approved by CDOT and FHWA. Noise Ordinances by time of day In general, most people are affected more by noise during nighttime hours than daytime hours. Federal agencies that recognize this typically penalize nighttime noise by 10 dB(A) when analyzing noise impacts. This could be recognized by incorporating restrictions on nighttime traffic. Engine Brake Ordinances Commonly called “jake” brakes, these compression brakes on trucks generate higher levels of noise. In general, “jake” brakes add 6 dB(A) at their source. However, since this is a point source, it dissipates more rapidly than a continuous line of traffic. At most receivers close to I-70 (at the 70 dB(A) contour), a jake brake adds about 2 dB(A) of noise. This noise generated from a jake brake has a distinctly different sound than typical traffic noise and is therefore more noticeable. At receivers farther away, the relative increase is less, 1.0 dB(A), at the 66-dB(A) contour, and 0.5 dB(A) at the 60-dB(A) contour. If engine brakes were prohibited in Vail, these point source noises could be eliminated. Variable Message Speed Sign (VMS) The VMS would provide a speed measurement for passing traffic, similar to the VMS in Glenwood Canyon. Static Truck Warning Sign A static truck warning sign would provide a warning for truckers that grades continue ahead and to maintain low speeds to prevent the necessity for using engine brakes, similar to truck warning signs at Mt. Vernon Canyon. Modeling Mitigation A third noise model was developed based on the results of the existing and future conditions modeled. The third model incorporates future conditions (worst case) with noise mitigation measures in place. Noise walls were modeled as abatement in various locations along the I- 70 corridor through Vail. The walls were modeled per CDOT maintenance standards. The walls were positioned 20 feet from the outside lane line along I-70. This distance from the lane line provides a full twelve-foot shoulder, as well as eight feet for snow storage. The Noise 7-23 Town of Vail distance also prevents the wall casting shadows in the travel lanes of I-70. Typical sections for noise walls on the north and south side of I-70 are shown in Appendix F1. The optimized height used to model the noise walls was determined by using the predicted attenuation provided by barrier nomographs. Based on variations in the height of the wall and the location of receivers through the I-70 corridor, attenuation was maximized. An Excel spreadsheet and figures representing the varying heights of noise walls and the amount of attenuation produced based on the barrier nomographs are included in Appendix F1. Table 7-9 describes the noise walls modeled. Table 7-9: Noise Wall Descriptions Wall Representative Receiver Sites Protected Approximate Length (feet) Barrier Height (feet) A R1, R2, R3 4700 12 B N/A* 1200 12 C R4, R5, R6 2500 16 D R7, R8, R9 3650 12 E R10, R11, R12 3650 16 F R13, R14, R15 2450 12 G R16, R17, R18, R19, R20, R21 6700 16 H N/A* 900 16 I R23, R24 4050 12 J R22, R25, R26, R27, R28 2750 12 K R31,R32,R33 7000 12 L N/A* 950 16 N R35 2300 12 M R36, R37, R38 550 16 O N/A* 1400 16 *Receiver sites were not modeled at these locations. Noise walls were modeled here based on the actual land use at these locations. See Appendix F1 for more detail. The top elevation of the walls located on the north side of I-70 was modeled at sixteen feet above the edge of pavement. The top elevation of the walls located on the south side of I-70 was modeled at twelve feet above the edge of pavement. In some instances the walls located on the south side of I-70 may actually be taller than twelve feet if the noise wall must be built on a retaining wall. The bottom elevation of the wall may be below the elevation of the edge of pavement. The difference in the height of the barriers is due to the difference in the topography of the I-70 corridor and the maximization of attenuation. The north side of I- Noise 7-24 Town of Vail 70 is a steep upward slope, while the south side of I-70 is a valley. Barriers were not modeled on any bridge structure. This caused for some gaps in the walls, which reduces the effectiveness of the barrier attenuation. Figure 7-2 shows the approximate locations of the noise walls modeled. While a particular wall may not show protection of a representative receiver site, actual receivers exist behind the wall. Walls have been modeled in locations that protect impacted receivers based on the predicted contour lines for the 2020 condition. Noise contour maps reflecting the affect of the modeled noise walls is included in Appendix F2. The year 2020 noise levels, at the modeled representative receiver sites with and without mitigation, are presented in Table 7-10. The noise levels shown in Table 7-10 do not reflect the affect of having parallel barriers in place. The STAMINA model does not produce results reflecting this condition. By having parallel barriers, especially when the heights of the parallel walls vary, the potential of noise reflecting off of the walls and back to the receivers is very likely. This parallel barrier effect could potentially increase the noise levels of certain receivers above levels currently experienced. If a more detailed analysis of the proposed noise abatement shows potential for reflection, absorptive materials should be used on the top of the wall face to reduce the parallel barrier effect. Noise 7-25 Town of Vail Re c e i v e r l o c a t i o n s w i t h n o i s e l e v e l s c u r r e n t l y i n ex c e s s o f 6 6 d B ( A ) a r e b o l d e d Fi g u r e 7 -2: A p p r o x i m a t e N o i s e W a l l L o c a t i o n s Noise 7-26 Town of Vail Table 7-10: Noise Model Results with Mitigation Measures in Place Receiver Receiver Distance from Roadway (FT) 2020 Noise Energy Levels (dB(A)) 2020 Noise Energy Levels (dB(A)) Attenuation from noise barriers modeled (dB(A)) R1 150 72.0 59.1 12.9 R2 530 62.0 51.9 10.1 R3 1275 61.0 55.4 5.6 R4 1150 56.4 52.4 4.0 R5 540 59.0 52.6 6.4 R6 275 63.3 53.0 10.3 R7 320 63.0 50.5 12.5 R8 625 65.4 56.8 8.6 R9 1000 63.6 59.4 4.2 R10 2100 61.0 55.4 5.6 R11 925 62.1 55.5 6.6 R12 300 63.3 51.9 11.4 R13 310 59.8 48.1 11.7 R14 670 63.1 55.4 7.7 R15 1475 62.4 56.2 6.2 R16 1430 61.3 57.4 3.9 R17 925 67.4 64.2 3.2 R18 150 77.5 61.0 16.5 R19 1900 58.0 50.4 7.6 R20 1550 54.5 50.8 3.7 R21 300 71.2 49.8 21.4 R22 1930 60.2 56.2 4.0 R23 170 63.9 62.0 1.9 R24 750 60.3 55.6 4.7 R25 1200 56.6 51.9 4.7 R26 1450 54.4 48.5 5.9 R27 650 64.9 56.9 8.0 R28 120 70.7 55.3 15.4 R29 680 57.3 56.0 1.3 R30 1080 56.6 55.2 1.4 Noise 7-27 Town of Vail Receiver Receiver Distance from Roadway (FT) 2020 Noise Energy Levels (dB(A)) 2020 Noise Energy Levels (dB(A)) Attenuation from noise barriers modeled (dB(A)) R31 1470 55.4 49.6 5.8 R32 1000 68.2 61.3 6.9 R33 750 55.2 47.6 7.6 R34 860 57.8 56.7 1.1 R35 250 59.5 58.0 1.5 R36 550 62.9 55.4 7.5 R37 900 63.5 58.5 5.0 R38 1100 61.6 56.5 5.1 R39 730 55.6 54.2 1.4 R40 770 58.3 56.8 1.5 R41 175 57.1 55.7 1.4 R42 1125 49.1 47.6 1.5 R43 580 58.0 56.5 1.5 R44 180 56.8 55.3 1.5 R45 540 56.6 55.1 1.5 R46 1050 60.3 58.8 1.5 R47 1650 52.7 51.3 1.4 R48 628 57.3 55.8 1.5 R49 600 54.7 53.2 1.5 R50 450 63.2 61.7 1.5 Cost of Mitigation Each of the walls modeled affect different numbers of receivers. The CDOT Noise Abatement Guidelines provide a cost allowance reflecting the effectiveness of the barrier. The NAC lists a cost ceiling of $3000/decibel reduction/receiver as being a reasonable cost. The CDOT NAC realizes attenuation only for those receivers experiencing at least a 3-dB(A) reduction in noise levels. The receivers included in the cost/benefit ratio are usually limited to the first row of buildings. In built-up residential or commercial areas, the first row of buildings along a highway may provide some reduction of highway noise to areas beyond that row of buildings. In turn, additional rows of buildings may provide additional noise reduction to areas still farther beyond. The row of buildings closest to the roadway present a worst case scenario for noise levels in the area because shielding effects due to buildings are not Noise 7-28 Town of Vail provided for the first row of homes. However, in the area through Vail, the topography of the area allows for direct lines of sight of I-70 to not only the first row of buildings, but also to buildings further away that may be located at a higher elevation. The walls modeled as mitigation can be constructed in various ways. Table 7-11 through Table 7-13 present the cost associated with different wall materials as well as the cost for the wall foundation based on the height of the wall. Table 7-11: Masonry (Concrete Block) Noise Wall Cost Noise Wall Height (FT) Cost of Wall ($/SF) Cost of Foundation ($/LF) Total Cost ($/LF) 12 24-35 190 478 16 24-35 190 574 Table 7-12: Concrete Pre-Cast Panel Noise Wall Cost Noise Wall Height (FT) Cost of Wall ($/SF) Cost of Foundation ($/LF) Total Cost ($/LF) 12 20-50 190 430-690 16 20-50 190 510-990 Table 7-13: Concrete Cast in Place Noise Wall Cost Noise Wall Height (FT) Cost of Wall ($/SF) Cost of Foundation ($/LF) Total Cost ($/LF) 12 30-40 190 550-670 16 30-40 190 670-830 Additional costs may include removing/replacing traffic signs, drainage design work, absorptive noise wall paneling, retaining walls, and the potential cost for de-icing. The cost of each of the walls modeled has been determined. The cost of the walls assumes $30 per square foot for the wall plus $190 per linear foot for the foundation. Based on the number of receivers that realize at least a 3-dB(A) decibel reduction behind each of the walls, the cost per decibel reduction was approximated. An average decibel reduction of 7 dB(A) Noise 7-29 Town of Vail for first row receivers (within 300 feet of I-70) was used to determine the cost per decibel reduction. The 7-dB(A) reduction is based on the average dB(A) reduction experienced by representative receiver sites modeled within 300 feet of I-70, with mitigation measures in place. The density information to determine the number of receivers realizing attenuation was provided by the Town of Vail Geographical Information System (GIS). The cost details for each wall modeled are listed in Table 7-14 below. Table 7-14: Noise Model Results with Mitigation Measures in Place Wall Representative Receiver Sites Protected Approxi- mate Length (feet) Barrier Height (feet) Unit Cost ($/LF) Segment Cost ($/LF) Cost per Decibel Reduction ($/dB(A)) A R1, R2, R3 4700 12 550 2,585,000 3929 B N/A 900 12 550 660,000 7857 C R4, R5, R6 1800 16 670 1,675,000 12,594 D R7, R8, R9 2700 12 550 2,007,500 2987 E R10, R11, R12 3700 16 670 2,445,500 12,047 F R13, R14, R15 1800 12 550 1,347,500 5833 G R16, R17, R18, R19, R20, R21 6700 16 670 4,489,000 2096 H N/A 900 16 670 603,000 86,143 I R23, R24 4100 12 550 1,417,500 862 J R22, R25, R26, R27, R28 2800 12 550 962,500 893 K R31,R32,R33 7000 12 550 3,850,000 13,095 L N/A 1000 16 670 636,500 5683 M R36, R37, R38 2300 16 670 1,541,000 22,014 N R35 600 12 550 82,500 2357 O N/A 1400 16 670 210,000 1034 *Shaded rows represent walls that are reasonable under the cost/benefit ratio determined in the NAC. Based on the cost benefit of the walls, six walls are economically reasonable according to the NAC. The NAC realizes a reasonable cost of $3,000/decibel reduction/receiver. A more detailed model of the proposed walls, analyzing the cost/benefit ratio for each wall including all receivers in the Town of Vail that receive a minimum 3-dB(A) reduction in noise level due to noise abatement measures, may result in more of the proposed walls being economically reasonable under the NAC. Also, where space allows, walls may be built as berms to reduce costs. Noise 7-30 Town of Vail Feasibility and Reasonableness of Mitigation As part of the noise analysis and abatement guidelines set by the FHWA as well as the CDOT, the feasibility and reasonableness of mitigation must be determined. FHWA has established vague standards to perform this determination. The CDOT has used these standards and created a more concise procedure to determine the feasibility and reasonableness of proposed mitigation measures. The following questions have been answered in order to perform the feasibility and reasonableness analysis as described in the instructions for completion of the noise abatement worksheet in the CDOT Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines (see Appendix F1). Feasibility · Can a continuous noise barrier or berm be constructed? Noise barriers or berms are most effective when they are continuous and do not have any breaks for driveways, sidewalks, streets, roads, utilities, drainage facilities, irrigation ditches, etc. In the Town of Vail, continuous noise barriers can be built to achieve desired noise reduction. · Can a 5-dB(A) noise reduction be achieved by constructing a noise barrier or berm? The noise model shows that the majority of first row receivers will realize a noise reduction of at least 5 dB(A) with the proposed mitigation measures in place. · Can a 5-dB(A) noise reduction be achieved by insulation of the receiver? (Normally limited to public and non-profit buildings.) This question is not considered since a 5-dB(A) reduction of noise can be achieved by constructing a continuous barrier. · Are there any “fatal flaw” safety or maintenance issues involving the proposed noise barrier or berm? Under the current proposed mitigation, no fatal flaws are apparent. However, a more detailed analysis of each of the proposed walls, should analyze details such as excessive restriction of sight distance, continuous shadows causing icing of driving lanes during the winter months, excessive glare or reflection of headlights or sunlight off the noise barrier, directing large volumes of water across the driving lanes or other severe drainage situations, to ensure no fatal flaws exist. Noise 7-31 Town of Vail Reasonableness Cost per impacted receiver per decibel. In consideration of each potential barrier or berm segment, the cost should be less than $3,000 per receiver per decibel reduction for a reasonable project, and less than $3,500 per receiver for a marginally reasonable project. This noise analysis only took into account the front row receivers to determine the cost per decibel reduction per receiver. A more detailed analysis may prove a minimum 3-dB(A) noise reduction for more receivers and therefore warrant more noise abatement reasonable based on cost. Of the fifteen proposed noise walls, six are considered reasonable or marginally reasonable based on cost. Impacted persons’ desires. At least 60 percent of impacted people, both property owners and renters, should want the proposed noise mitigation measure for the project to be considered reasonable. An in-depth public involvement program would be necessary to determine the majority of public opinion. This public involvement would be performed during a more detailed study. Development type. The mixture of development types plays a major part in determining the reasonableness of noise mitigation. For a project to be considered reasonable, at least 45 percent of the development should consist of Category B receivers (see Table 7-2). The Town of Vail has approximately 93 percent of the development consisting of Category B receivers. Under the CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria that makes noise mitigation within the Town of Vail very reasonable. Development vs. Highway timing. This item compares the date of the residential or commercial development of the impacted receivers to the date of construction of the roadway improvement that contributes transportation generated noise levels. For a project to be considered reasonable, at least 50 percent of the impacted receivers should have development dates that predate the initial highway construction or last through lane addition project. The Town of Vail has approximately twelve percent of the development predating the initial interstate construction of 1969, and 53 percent predating the last phase of interstate construction in 1976 from Booth Creek east over Vail Pass. Under the CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria that makes noise mitigation within the Town of Vail reasonable. Development existence. This item addresses the length of time impacted receivers have been exposed to transportation related noise impacts. For a project to be considered reasonable, at least 50 percent of the impacted commercial and residential receivers in a development should have been in existence for more than fifteen years. Approximately 89 percent of the residential receivers have been in existence for more than fifteen years in the Town of Vail. Under the CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria that makes noise mitigation within the Town of Vail very reasonable. Noise 7-32 Town of Vail Land use controls. This item addresses the degree of land use planning which occurs in an area that attempts to minimize transportation related noise impacts on new development. For a project to be considered reasonable, local officials must either routinely coordinate new subdivision proposals with CDOT or have local land use restrictions in place that control incompatible land use adjacent to highway corridors. The Town of Vail has the following issues: · Very stringent zoning controls. · Very stringent design review guidelines. · A town-wide noise ordinance. This includes the use of engine “jake” brakes. · The use of berms for most residential areas abutting the interstate. Commercial zoning (as a buffer) on most portions of West Vail adjacent to I-70. · Most of the land away from I-70 is constrained by geologic hazards (snow avalanche, rock fall, debris flow, 100-year floodplain). Approximately 40 percent of Vail's land area lies within a rock fall hazard zone, while no portion of the I-70 corridor through Vail lies within a rock fall zone. Therefore, there is minimal choice but to locate development adjacent to the interstate. · The Town of Vail is constrained by the national forest. · With very tight topographical and political boundaries, Vail averages ½ mile wide with I- 70 splitting this difference. This leaves minimal space for development. · Many parts of the residential development that lies adjacent to I-70 (Matterhorn and West Vail) that has no buffer, was developed in Eagle County and then annexed from Eagle County. Therefore, the Town of Vail did not have the benefit of reviewing development of these areas. Under the CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria these issues make noise mitigation measures within the Town of Vail reasonable. Summary The following are the results of the traffic noise impacts analysis conducted for the I-70 corridor through the Town of Vail: · FHWA/CDOT criteria were used as a guide for considering noise impacts. Noise 7-33 Town of Vail · Currently, five representative receiver sites, representing a total of approximately 540 receivers, are found to have noise levels in excess of the noise impact criteria. These representative receivers, R1, R18, R21, R28, and R32 are currently above the 66- dB(A) noise level. While these numbers reflect the number of receivers accounted for by the representative receiver locations, the numbers do not reflect the total number of affected receivers (those receivers that experience noise levels exceeding the 66- dB(A) approach criteria) located in the Town of Vail. In order to determine the total number of affected receivers refer to the noise contour maps presented in Appendix F2. · For the year 2020, six representative receiver sites, representing a total of 600 receivers, were predicted to have noise levels in excess of the noise impact criteria. These receivers, R1, R17, R18, R21, R28, and R32 are predicted to have noise levels above 66 dB(A) in the year 2020 based on projected traffic increases. While these numbers reflect the number of receivers accounted for by the representative receiver locations, the numbers do not reflect the total number of affected receivers (those receivers that experience noise levels exceeding the 66-dB(A) approach criteria) located in the Town of Vail. In order to determine the total number of affected receivers refer to the noise contour maps presented in Appendix F2. · The largest noise levels will occur for receivers located closest to I-70 or with the best line of sight of I-70. However, an increase in the distance from I-70 does not always reflect a decrease in noise level. Each receiver may have a different shielding effect based on obstacles (e.g., buildings, vegetation, and partial barriers) between the receiver and the roadway, which may prevent sound energy from reaching the receivers. · An average increase of 0.7 dB(A) in noise level occurs with every five mph increase in speed along I-70. · An average increase of 0.04 dB(A) in noise level occurred for a ten-foot increase in elevation for each receiver and an increase of 0.002 dB(A) in noise level occurred for a 20-foot increase in elevation for each receiver. · An average increase of 0.3 dB(A) in noise level occurred for an overall increase of two percent trucks in the traffic mix along I-70 and an increase of 0.6 dB(A) in noise level occurred for an overall increase of four percent trucks in the traffic mix along I- 70. · Table 7-15 below represents the average dB(A) increase based on increasing traffic volumes. Noise 7-34 Town of Vail Table 7-15: Relative Noise Level Increases Based on Traffic Volumes Traffic Volumes (Average Daily Traffic) Relative Noise Level (dB(A)) Noise Level Increase (per 5000 Vehicles per day) 40000 46.0 N/A 45000 46.5 0.5 50000 46.9 0.4 55000 47.4 0.4 60000 47.7 0.3 65000 48.1 0.3 70000 7500 48.5 0.3 75000 48.8 0.3 80000 49.0 0.2 · Noise produced by short duration point sources including jake brakes and rumble strips add to the overall existing noise levels. An average additive increase to the noise levels represented by the contour lines can be expected. The additive increase to the existing 60-dB(A), 66-dB(A), and 70-dB(A) contour lines due to jake brakes is 0.5 dB(A), 1.0 dB(A), and 2.0 dB(A), respectively. The additive increase to 60-dB(A), 66-dB(A), and 70-dB(A) contour lines due to rumble strips is 1.0 dB(A), 3.0 dB(A), and 4.0 dB(A), respectively. · Noise contour maps were developed (based on noise readings taken at various representative receiver sites) to estimate noise levels at any location in the Vail area. These should be used as a guide only, due to the variability of noise levels in the Vail area caused by shielding and reflection. Receiver sites may vary from single-unit structures to structures housing multiple units. The actual number of affected receivers is based on the number of units per structure. Actual noise measurements should be taken in order to determine the exact noise levels at any specific location. · Since this noise analysis does not include highway construction on a new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway, federal funds are not eligible for noise mitigation, under the Type I project considerations. Federal funds are eligible for this project under Type II project considerations, but the noise mitigation would have to compete against other highway projects on the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). · The location and size of the proposed noise wall are analyzed strictly on a planning level analysis. The proposed walls should be optimized prior to the design stage. · The implementation of Type II projects is a strictly voluntary decision made by a DOT Noise 7-35 Town of Vail and there are no special or separate federal funds to provide highway traffic noise abatement based on Type II projects. · Based on the previous Type II priority list, if funds should become available through the reinstitution of a Type II program in Colorado, the Town of Vail should have high priority for those funds. · The Town of Vail may compete with other transportation projects on the STIP for funds based on the traffic noise impacts due to I-70 traffic. · Due to the outcome of the Noise Abatement Determination Worksheet, the overall noise abatement proposed for the Town of Vail is feasible and reasonable. A more detailed analysis of each individual wall should be performed before any design of the proposed mitigation is done. APPENDICES A1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, March 2000 and July 2000 A2 FHU Vail Village Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, September 2000 B1 Project Objectives and Criteria B2 Technology Screening Process C1 Portions of the Eagle County Trails Master Plan C2 Trail Maps from Original Transportation Master Plan D1 Intersection Level of Service D2 Roundabout Level of Service D3 Parking Garage Level of Service E I-70 Capping and Fixed Guideway Mapping F1 CDOT Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines F2 Noise Contour Mapping G FHWA Joint Development Study H1 Population and Employment Data H2 Traffic Volume Data H3 Model Calibration H4 Growth Model H5 Trip Reassignment Work Table